N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. ALEX R OM ER O M EDR ANO, AKA Dre a m e r, De fe nda

n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 18-50168

D.C . No. 2:14-c r-00556-R -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia M anue l L. R e a l , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 16, 2019 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : C ALLAHAN a

nd C H R ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s, a nd C HEN, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED AUG 27 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Edwa rd M . C h e n , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.Ale x M e drano ple a de d guilty to distribution of m

e tha m phe tam ine , a

nd wa s origina lly se nte n c e d to proba

tion. 1 The gove rnm e nt a

ppe a l e d tha

t se nte nc e a s inc o m patible with thefive -y e ar sta tutory m an datory

m inim um se nte nc e e sta

blishe d for his c rim e of c onvic tion. W e a gre e d with thegove rnm e nt, a n d re m an de d

for
re se nte nc ing “ in a c c orda

nc e with them andatory m inim um [.] ” Unite d State

s v . Me d rano , 714 F. App’ x 765, 766 (9th C ir. 2018). On re m and, the distric t c ourt im pose d a five -y e ar te rm

of im p risonm e n t. M e drano now a p pe a ls his re vise d
c ustodia l se nte n c e . W e h a ve jurisdic tion pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a

nd we
a ffirm
. M e drano c ite s Unite d State s v . Arre llano-Rios , 799 F.2d 520, 523 (9th C ir. 1986), for the proposition tha t a n inc re a s e d se nte nc e im

pose d a fte r a

de fe nda nt ha s fully se rve d a la wful se nte nc e viola

te s the Double Je opa

rdy C la use . M e drano ove rlooks tha

t his original se nte nc e wa s not la wfully im pose d, a s we c le a

rly
artic ulate d in our m e m oran dum disposition re

m a n d ing this c a se for re se nte nc ing. Se e Me drano , 714 F. App’ x at 766. Our c a se la w distinguishe s a

n unla wful first
se nte nc e from

a la wful one , and the Double Je opa rdy C la use is not im

plic ate d whe n a la wful se nte nc e is im

pose d a fte r an unla

wful se nte nc e is va c ate d. S e e

1 B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c t s a

nd a rgum e n ts, we re c i te the m

only a s ne c e s sa

ry to re solve M e drano’ s a p pe a l. 2Unite d

State s v . K ane , 876 F.2d 734, 737 (9th C ir. 1989) (“ Ge ne ra lly , a de fe nda nt
c an a c q uire no e xpe c tation of fina lity in a n ille ga l se nte nc e , whic h

re m a ins subje c t to m odific ation.” ); U

nite d State

s v . Edmonson , 792 F.2d 1492, 1496 (9th C ir. 1986) (“ The re is no double je opa rdy prohibition a

ga inst c orre c ting a

n ille ga l
se nte nc e e ve n if suc h c o rre c tion inc re a se s the punishm e nt.” ). Like w ise , we disc e rn no c onstitutiona

l proble m with thefa ilure to c re dit non-c ustodia l tim e a ga inst a
c ustodia l se nte n c e . C

f. K e nnic k v . Supe rior C

t. , 736 F.2d 1277, 1281, 1283 (9th C ir. 1984). M e drano’ s due proc e s s c ha lle nge a lso fa ils. Substa ntia l , pre judic ia l
a ppe lla te de la y c an trigge r due proc e ss c onc e rns, Unite d State s v . Antoine , 906 F.2d 1379, 1382 (9th C ir. 1990), but in this c a se the de la y be twe e n M e drano’ s first
se nte nc e of proba

tion a nd the c om

ple t ion of thegove rnm e nt’ s a ppe a l wa s c a

use d in la rge pa rt by M e dran o’ s re pe ate d proba tion viola tions. In light of the

fa c t tha t the B ure a u of Prisons ha s c re dite d the six m onths M e drano se rve d in c ustody for his fourth proba

tion viola tion a ga inst his five -y e ar prison se nte nc e , M e drano ha s not shown tha

t his right to due proc e ss wa s viola te d. 2 AFFIRM E D.

2 The gove rnm e n t’ s unoppose d m otion to supple m e nt the re c ord (Dkt. No. 29) is gra

nte d. 3